Posts by sifferkoll

    Arxiv rejected the Lugano paper because it was riddled with problems, not because the PTB, MIB, or The Man are blocking progress to save the oil/electric companies (or whatever).

    Baah!!! Arxiv didn't even bother to read it, only put in on hold, covering their eyes going bah bah bah - hoping it would disappear... :) The reason for this was hardly MIBs or whatever, but simply critique from their bosses (since they allowed the first report) at the coffee machine and mild threats of reduced funding next year... As it always goes in academics. Nothing new, simple logic. No need to bring on the PTB arguments here.

    Yes. Most everything said about Rossi is the truth. That is an absolute defense. Not so about others. I can only wish I made money from the advice I have given about Defkalion and Rossi. Even though I helped save Dick Smith from a million dollar loss with Defkalion, I did it gratis... pro boner .. uh... bono ...

    När man talar om trollen ... (as we say in swedish).

    I guess if it was the truth it would be fine, but it isn't. You're only making things up because you are driven by emotions/hatred (you said so) and have contracted some rare kind of obsessive disorder when it comes to names starting with R and ending with ossi ... Obviously your condition is affecting your rational judgement. That's the Truth you're looking for ... And, it's gratis...

    All of that is self-taught (and probably erroneous), learned from reading textbooks I purchased on Amazon in 2012 and after when I first started taking an interest in LENR experimental writeups and in skeptical criticisms of LENR.

    of course ... that could be a partial answer to my question.

    you have interpreted my past actions your through your own characteristic lense.

    Well, yes. I suppose I have. I'm a little curious though. Is the physics described in you stackexchange comments and the isotope report what they teach at physics 101 in collage? Or are you downplaying?

    Ahh, since that is about my level of physics education I know what you are talking about. I'll explain the creepiness with examples.

    Firstly, anyone can have a look at some initial comments that you made on stackexchange (late 2011) and according to me they not exactly fit that newbie description. Initial comments . It looks a lot more like you are playing a role and are doing some fishing (I'm just a nobody who dont understand - so you can tell me everything sort of) ...

    Another example: In late 2015 you mange to produce this somewhat confusing FUD report on the isotope changes presented in the Lugano Report (). It certainly neither look like something normally produced by a newbie or by a mid-range java-script/ruby developer (according to linkedin and github) for that matter. I can assure you that.

    So my conclusion is that you are hiding something. You are obviously downplaying your physics knowledge for a reason. And in this context it is creepy.

    And for someone with all this passion you've shown lately on forum moderation I would expect a Internet trace ... but nothing. You obviously have a lot to say about the philosophy of moderation and do not hesitate to tell anyone how "graduated" and "practical" your approach is. But as with the physics - at the same time you have not done it before.... Creepy - yes.

    Yes, clearly. Since the approach here and my own involvement were being systematically misrepresented, I thought it opportune to clarify things for lurkers and newbies; and, if there was a shred of sincerity left in sifferkoll , perhaps for him on a point or two as well. Part of the challenge is that there are people who are sincere who find sifferkoll 's and Zephir_AWT 's arguments persuasive. Nonetheless I no doubt gave them more airtime than was warranted. Now that old points are being revisited, I will disengage.

    More or less... I would however say that your approach has been PRESENTED, which is good enough for the lurkers newbies in my opinion since we settled on who has eagerly taken on the task of impersonating Old Major of this farm ;)

    I do find some amount of satisfaction in protecting this forum from those such as yourself who would impose your way upon it against the wishes of the LENR Forum team. But what you call complex rules are largely a description of what we've already been doing, described as best as I can describe it. The main recent innovations are the Playground thread (Rends's idea), this thread and the two-week bans for ignoring moderator warnings. For some time now we already had valued forum members and less valued ones, and we did not blindly apply rules irrespective of context and the personalities involved. I've simply attempted to put the existing approach into words as best as I can as the topic has come up.

    There was a time a year or two ago when you and several others had more or less free reign, with Alan spread thin and only him to deal with a flood of misbehavior, and at that time this place was incredibly unpleasant. My hope is that LENR Forum is now a little more pleasant for the kinds of people with the knowledge and skills we seek to attract.

    I don't know where you got the impression that I don't have an opinion about things or that I try to come across that way. I think this is you trying to read too much into things, when I've said pretty much what I think in posts here and on Vortex.

    That is an interesting twist. Is elevating Dewey to a "principal" and bringing that mad mary dog in your idea of pleasant? But I guess it is a question of bias? I get that your aim is to keep the Rossi specific discussions on a very narrow technical speculation level and avoid anything deviating from that track (like why? and who?). But I'm a little curious on why this is so important to you and why it is so incredibly important not to discuss motives (except speculation about Rossi et al) - when those, as always when it comes to humans - are fundamental.

    Maybe I'm wrong about you having no opinion. I should restate: You are very careful to have the exact calculation of an average opinion on the forum; which in this case is an clearly anti-Rossi, slightly hopeful LENR (otherwise why be here at all and hard to attract Jed&Dewey - and you got the mary dog and others to cover the extremes) but still sceptical. And as I quoted before, you said it yourself in the stackexchange wet boy presentation;


    Enthusiast with questions about physics from time to time. Since I’m not in much of a position to assess the validity of answers, I generally just pick the answer with the most votes after a certain amount of time has passed.

    In that context I find it hard to comprehend why you suddenly seem to put so much passion and work into the moderation role you so eagerly have taken on here. It is a bit creepy.

    I am certainly not the main moderator here or acting as the main moderator. It is entirely a team effort, and I have no privileged role. Alan and I work closely together, and Barty and Rends have helped out as well. Your complaints about my moderation will no doubt be considered on their merits.

    Everyone can see (count) that you are the one who obviously gets your juices running on setting the rules, giving members different grades and privileges depending on your whims and their bias, etc. And then of course you seem to love the policing part of it way more than anyone else. All this is kind of strange for a guy that made a name for himself specifically by not having any opinion at all about anything .

    What kind of person is more interested in implementing complex moderation rules than the subject itself (except maybe for very narrow technical pseudo discussions/speculations) - especially the social, psychological, political and economical implications of lenr tech? I don't get it. It does not compute. Or is it deliberate?

    No, you don't return the behavior in kind. Your option in that case is to calmly call out the behavior as an ad hominem argument, if it is, and, hopefully, to go further and explain why allegations of criminal activities or being in on a gig are false or, quite often, unsubstantiated. You can do all of this without insulting anyone or raising the question of their motives and intent or injecting vitriol. The more specific the focus is on details the better.

    Clear enough ... The pecking order of your farm is settled. Different people - different rules... It certainly will please the Rossi-haters and I suppose that is part of the game we play, right?

    To the contrary! I encourage you to reply to those who have earned a reputation for making a real argument. But you have to reply with a real argument as well. I would like you to do that, in fact. Replying with petty insults and ad homs is the opposite of a real argument.

    Well of course. That is the easy part. But what am I suppose to do when a "high-value" member is accusing Rossi of criminal activities or Dewey accusing the Swedes to be in on some kind of "gig"? Not saying it is efficient, but it would at least be reasonable that I was allowed to make up a random story and accuse them back, right?

    If you wish to move out of the category of low-value contributor, the path is straightforward: stop attacking people and calmly address the details raised in discussions. If you produce a real argument, things change considerably.

    Of course I can understand this being ideal for you. Keep in line, don't argue with the "high-values" (since they are allowed to carry big guns - Dewey will like that analogy) and there will be no trouble with the authorities... ;)

    . I think this is the only sane approach on a forum on the internet with open membership.

    No you are wrong. What you get by your complex and event based approach to moderation with bias and grading here and there is an Animal Farm.

    My understanding of the double standard you were alleging earlier was that attacks on forum members are not allowed, but that not much is done to prevent attacks on public figures outside of the forum. Did I misunderstand what you intended earlier when you referred to a "double standard"? With regard to the a graduated standard, I have said on multiple occasions that we do not value all participants here equally, and that some have more leeway than others. I think this is the only sane approach on a forum on the internet with open membership.

    It is of course both.

    Yes it is certainly double standard to allow Dewey more rants than I'm allowed to rant back. You may have your reasons (agenda, order in the classroom, contribution grades etc), but it is a double standard.

    And yes it is a double standard allowing everyone to rant endless accusations towards Rossi, the swedes and italians, etc. But not allowing me to rant back at the accusers in a similar manner. I would say it is actually more honest to talk directly to someone than to discuss someone external since the opponent is able to respond. But I will settle for equal standards.

    This is not the "double standard" you were alleging earlier, but it is a graduated standard. And it helps to elevate the level of discussion somewhat.

    "Graduated standard"... Wow! That is a new way describing a double standard when you do not want to say the word "double" ... And if the evaluation of my contribution is a "democratic" process at the same time as you are enforcing the bias here. Well then I suppose your team of Rossi-haters will have it their way here... But I doubt this is the goal of the founders of the forum.

    Sifferkoll, I'm going to end this discussion with you if you refuse to address specific things I have said.

    Your right. I believe we finally reached a conclusion ... (you did in the end answer my question)

    "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" sums it up pretty well.

    there is no double standard.

    Wow, that took some time to squeeze out of you... Do you really believe that then you are either delusional (ask IO) or have by now finally realized that this is what you have to say to save your sorry ...

    If you have something concrete to address of what I've said, Sifferkoll, please do. What you write above, about my "dancing around the issue," does not address any point I have made. It is for this reason vacuous.

    What? The issue is, as probably everyone else understands by now, your lack of clear answers on if you use double standards in moderation or not ...

    Saying it's a double standard repeatedly does not make it one.

    I guess you are correct about that one ... But it is nevertheless as IO acknowledged above. Take my advise Eric and let go of this issue. It is double standard and you know it. Your obfuscating behaviour and lack of clear answers proves it.

    And the reason for your tap dancing is presumably that using double standards is not included in the official forum policy? Am I right?

    Yes I do and for exactly the reason I said. Forum participants here are not public figures and therefore have the protection afforded by being members of the community. If you don't like what people have to say about Rossi, block them. Rossi's a big boy and he can take care of himself, if he isn't too busy measuring excess heat with a stethoscope.

    Good. I like that you have a clear opinion of things. You do not obfuscate like a bad politician and I like that you acknowledge that it is a double standard.

    (Eric should listen and stop dancing around the issue with endless excuses not to touch it )

    Can you clarify what was nonsense, instead of keeping things general?

    If you systematically derail discussions by turning them away from the details being discussed towards the motives and intentions of the people here, your comments will end up in the bargain bin, for sure. As I said, this is not a double standard. This is enforcing a minimum of decorum in a rowdy forum, which you appear intent on disrupting.

    The nonsense is of course using standards that can be fitted at will, like the interpretation of "practical" etc...

    Yes, it is double standard when I'm not allowed to argue directly with the members using not even close to the same ad-hom techniques they use on Rossi and the swedes. How you can not understand this is beyond comprehension.

    Of course there is a double standard with respect to Rossi. And there should be. For the purposes of this blog, he is a public figure and public figures are not treated as private individuals with respect to public discourse. Perhaps that doesn't seem fair, but that is the way of the world.

    Look at any other medium. One can pretty much say whatever one wants to about President Trump, the New York Yankees, Brad Pitt, and Britney Spears. They are public figures and being the recipient of a wide spectrum of commentary from the unwashed masses, much of it unkind and classless, comes with the territory. Sometimes it is well-deserved, sometimes it isn't. If you can't take the heat, get out of the frying pan.

    I am sure that if Rossi was a regular poster on this blog (assuming that he isn't already under some pseudonym), then the mods would police abuse towards him in the same way as they do towards other forum members.

    More important though; do you also agree with Eric that forum member engaging in these Rossi/swede attacks should be left alone doing so, and that it should not be allowed to argue with them using the same type of arguments they are using against rossi? Do you agree with these double standards?

    We do not have a double standard on insults. We have a practical standard. If you insult and attack other forum members with ad homs and regularly fail to engage with the details of the ongoing discussion, you will find yourself in difficulties. If you insult and attack people not directly participating in the discussion, this is bad form and reflects poorly on your upbringing, and eventually it may warrant a response. But it does not systematically derail the discussion. We would prefer that all attacks on anyone whatsoever, forum member or not, go away. But given the very low place that we are starting, being a forum on the internet with open membership, the first priority is to get the discussion into a sane place by discouraging direct attacks on other forum members. It is an incremental process.

    You may not like this. You may think this is a double standard. It does not matter.

    Thank you Eric! Another busload of nonsense, but I take it as a loud and clear YES on the double standard q&a?

    To summarize: You will keep allowing every possible insult and accusation regarding criminal activity etc when it comes to Rossi, the Swedes, Italians, etc but that you will not allow me making comments directly to them doing it here on the forum, because that will disrupt your order of things ... ??? ... No, I do not like it. And I believe I'm not the only one. But I hear you load and clear Eric. I do.

    I will respond to this, not for your benefit, sifferkoll , because I've already explained it to you, and either you simply don't like the answer or you don't have a sense of where I'm coming from, but for the benefit of others.

    This forum is a place for rational discussion of the science of LENR research and for following developments related to LENR. It is not a place for scrutinizing the motives and intentions of others, for waging holy war or for complaining endlessly about moderator actions. Mary, Jed, THH, Dewey and others make many comments about the science of LENR research. You seem intent only on scrutinizing the motives and intentions of others, on waging holy war and on complaining about moderator actions. Those two times you were banned were for ignoring warnings and persisting in derailing discussions and turning them away from the matter at hand and towards the participants themselves. You have opinions about how things should be run here and about what the proper topics of discussion are. The LENR Forum team have our own, and you're a guest here. When you repeatedly disrupt discussions and attack forum members, you get yourself into trouble. Pretty simple in the end.

    Another busload of words, but not a clear answer. I believe also "others" would benefit if you answer the question clearly. Is it the official forum policy to have double standards when it comes insults and ad-homs? Ie. one standard regarding Rossi et al and another for everybody else?

    Sifferkoll. If you keep attacking Eric I would feel forced to do something about it. If you don't like what he says, my advice is to block him. Then what he posts won't inflame your passions so much.

    IMHO this forum would be a poorer place without some of the colour and comments you are (on a good day) capable of adding, but if you keep making personal attacks we will lose you again. -

    I have no problem with reading Eric. As you might suspect I enjoy an argument that is a little bit heated. More fun ... The problem I have is that Eric (blocking him will not help) has banned me twice for comments that are considerably less insulting than produced by Mary, Jed, Dewey, THH etc in every other post towards Rossi. So my question is if it is the official forum policy to have double standards in this regard?

    Sifferkoll. If you keep attacking Eric I would feel forced to do something about it. If you don't like what he says, my advice is to block him. Then what he posts won't inflame your passions so much.

    IMHO this forum would be a poorer place without some of the colour and comments you are (on a good day) capable of adding, but if you keep making personal attacks we will lose you again. -

    I have no problem with reading Eric. As you might suspect I enjoy an argument that is a little bit heated. More fun ... The problem I have is that Eric (blocking him will not help) has banned me twice for comments that are considerably less insulting than produced by Mary, Jed, Dewey, THH etc in every other post towards Rossi. So my question is if it is the official forum policy to have double standards in this regard?

    This has become very interesting. Eric is the most grounded voice of sanity and reason on this board.

    He keeps the deluded haters and duped / biased mods (in various degrees) in check.

    I believe it is too early in the morning for you. You're talking about Alan, not Eric.

    I have no problem with Eric as long he is not using his powers to implement different standards of moral conditioning depending on bias. I see absolutely no reasons to respect a person doing that.